On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 10:02:51 +0100, David Hansen wrote (in article ):
Something which is highly undesirable.
However, the private sector will invest if the government creates favourable investment conditions.
Looks like they got at least one thing right. When one sees the acres of wind turbines across the flatter parts of Denmark, thank goodness it has not become widespread here - it's a total eyesore.
That's not a very wise purchase. There are some very strange ideas around energy production in Denmark. At one stage they were burning fish oil as part of the fuel source for electricity production.
He's incompetent in every respect apart from the one the makes sure that blame always falls elsewhere.
Thank goodness. Hopefully that will make investment and other resources available for sensible and scalable means of generating energy.
I don't think that that particularly matters.
The proportions make a huge difference to energy policy economics.
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 09:47:29 +0100, David Hansen wrote (in article ):
Economic and political circumstances change as does technology. Fossil fuels are more expensive and there is political motivation to reduce carbon emissions. An argument that was valid or not in the past may well have little relevance to the present or future.
Knowledge and expertise are commodities that can be bought and sold. Service industries do it all the time
Do they? I wouldn't know.
I think that the large scale *deployment* of wind turbines is questionable but I wouldn't differentiate about where the engineering is done.
"Stick your hand on and see how warm it is" is hardly going to be very accurate. Surface area, surface texture and ventilation will make big differences to the perceived temperature rise.
Here's some reliable measured data:
Iiyama 17" CRT (VisionMaster Pro): 90 W (at 0.66 PF) Dell 18" LCD (1800FP): 42 W (at 0.65 PF) (both displaying same "average" image)
So, in reality, you need to double those figures. Still not a lot, but certainly more than nothing, and significant when you multiply it by the number of monitors in the land.
On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 12:41:49 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-
Of course.
That does not follow. Everyone has prejudices which sometimes affect how they think of things. Not everyone recognises this, but the prejudices still exist.
Mechanically ugly in what way?
Are they all visibly ugly? I can see that some might consider
formatting link
be visibly ugly, just as some may consider them visibly attractive. However, I can't really see why anyone would consider
formatting link
be visibly ugly, or at least no more visibly ugly than an opal GLS candle bulb.
Anyway, most lamps are not visible, they are inside a fitting.
You must have a very interesting collection of luminaires. I can now get compact fluorescent lamps to go into almost every luminaire that I have, a very varied set of fittings.
The main exceptions are some 12V eyeball spotlights. Note however, that I could very easily replace them with spotlights to take
formatting link
formatting link
if these lights were turned on for any period of time. I also have a striplight over a mirror, which could be replaced by a small fluorescent light should it be left on for long times.
As I indicated I have recently replaced GLS lamps in some bulkhead fittings by a compact fluorescent lamp that has been on the market for a couple of years. The glass envelope of the bulkhead fitting was too small to take the "Mr Whippy" style lamps, which were previously the shortest on the market.
That does not mean that no luminaire has GLS type bulbs. Some do, for various reasons.
Ah, so despite the claim above some do fit.
Depends on the fitting. Brass chandelier style fittings with clear bulbs will certainly look different and perhaps/probably less attractive. However, most fittings have a shade and are intended for opal bulbs rather then clear ones.
I note that the figures on Helen's bulbs have yet to be challenged mathematically, other then some claims about increasing consumption of fuel for heating. On these claims, as you have said, the effect on heating consumption is minimal.
While the cost arguments are excellent, cost is not the only reason for doing something. If it was nobody with any knowledge would fit double glazing.
The convenience of not replacing lamps so often is a real one in some cases, especially if a bulb is left on for long periods. It can also be a safety issue, as another poster has indicated.
Having a lamp that is very reliable is an advantage in some cases.
In confined conditions avoiding excessive heat can be a great advantage, which is the main reason I replaced the lamps in the bulkhead fittings.
So far I have not mentioned the environment, but there are two advantages to mention. Firstly reducing carbon dioxide emissions by reducing consumption. A programme to fit energy saving bulbs in all houses would reduce electricity consumption and hence carbon dioxide emissions.
The second environmental reason is the life cycle. A lamp that lasts
15 years has less energy and components than the 15-30 GLS bulbs it replaces. While the compact fluorescent has more components it lasts much longer. Even better is to separate the control gear from the tube. One can get some fittings that do that for PL and 2D tubes. It is a pity there are not more, but the numbers are growing.
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 13:38:22 +0100, David Hansen wrote (in article ):
In this case it does.
Certainly. `Especially in the area of leaving things out that don't suit the agenda.
These are especially ugly
They are fat and lumpy with a plastic piece at the bottom and are opalescent. I wouldn't use an opal tungsten bulb either.
That depends on the fitting.
I have, and I am certainly not about to ruin their appearance with inappropriate bulbs.
They may just about mechanically fit but still appear ugly if the bulb can be seen.
These are absolutely horrible.
A great deal less attractive to the point of totally ruining the appearance.
The ones that you buy might do.
Quite.
So here we have the suggestion of implementing something that saves very little money and looks plug ugly. There aren't really any significant other arguments in favour of these things, and those are weak.
I will accept that if somebody has difficulty in changing lamps then these may be attractive, but notice that for Helen, the yuk factor exceeds the convenience.
As to safety, if people can't take reasonable care of where they put things in order to avoid fire, then they are going to be in trouble sooner or later anyway. This is Darwinism.
In overall context this is a very weak argument indeed. Reduction of consumption via this means is a drop in the bucket, even assuming it worked. It is far more sensible to address the issue of consumption in the right order rather than using what is effectively political marketing hype like this. In the meantime, carbon emission in respect of power generation can very easily be addressed by a move towards nuclear generation.
As to any "programme" to fit these bulbs into all houses, it smacks of a totalitarian society with big brother organising people's lives. There needs to be freedom to choose what is used as part of a personal living environment.
that is so insignificant in the overall scheme of things that it isn't even worth discussing.
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 14:11:04 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-
Carbon dioxide emission can be reduced a bit by such a move. However, nuclear power stations are inflexible and large. To deal with the former one must either absorb the surplus generation during periods of low consumption, by building large and expensive things like Dinorwig,
formatting link
or sell it to someone else (possible to an extent across time zones). Even with the proposed new designs one cannot turn such stations on and off.
To deal with the latter one must have a lot of standby plant ready to respond rapidly. This could be something like Dinorwig, or partly loaded coal plants. Of course the latter push up carbon dioxide emissions. Sudden failure is far more of a problem with a small number of large centralised plants, such as nuclear ones, than with a large number of small decentralised plants.
I would agree, if people were banned from removing such fittings and there was an army of Prescotts checking up.
I note that you were unable or unwilling to discuss the issue.
So far your arguments remain unconvincing. Unless you come up with any new arguments you may have the last word.
That depends on the uptime of the plants used, and each plant type is different. Nuclear has the highest uptime of all. Every plant has downtime so transmission networks are always designed to deal with this without disruption.
of course. Nice to see some better figures supplied.
I guess it depends what youre seeking to calculate. For most end users the question is whether its worthwhile to drop the crt and replace with lcd. If we take 7 years as a reasonable use life, an lcd used 9-5 5 days will save around =A370 over its life, which doesnt make replacement worthwhile.
Consumpion of electrical energy matters to the nation of course, but so does the energy used in manufacture, distribution and running the businesses involved in making those monitors available. Based on the above figures I could not conclude that replacing good crts with lcds was an environmentally sound move.
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 14:40:18 +0100, David Hansen wrote (in article ):
I'm sure that there's plenty of scope for converting a Scottish loch or two.
I am quite sure that that can easily be addressed.
They seem to be pretty good at checking up on things like totty and cowboys as long as it's at the taxpayer's expense. I doubt whether that would leave much time for inspecting light bulbs.
Since you seem to be unable to appreciate scale and context then it is difficult to have a discussion
I'm not attempting to convince anybody of anything. I have simply highlighted that light quality and aesthetics are an issue, whereas you seem to feel that it's OK having lighting that makes the place look like a corporation toilet as long as some apparent saving can be made or one can feel warm inside through believing that one has done something to help the planet. Each to his own.
In the context of the energy requirement for a house, that for lighting is a very small part, and if the householder does have interest in cost saving, there are more effective ways to do so.
In the context of the energy requirements for an industrialised nation, the argument becomes weaker still.
You may also find the ecological arguments compelling. I don't. Granted there is a need to reduce carbon emissions, whether or not one believes in the imminent demise of the planet through global warming. However, this is most effectively achieved by replacement of fossil fuel generating capacity with nuclear.
On 9 Jul 2006 07:07:14 -0700 someone who may be snipped-for-privacy@care2.com wrote this:-
So it has always been claimed by the nuclear lobby. However, reality was always somewhat different and this is becoming more common knowledge. For example, "Several British Energy reactors which were revealed yesterday to be physically deteriorating, are believed to be close to being uneconomic to run. According to British Energy's figures, the three oldest, at Hinkley, Hartlepool and Heysham, are barely operating 50% of the time, partly because they need to be inspected more frequently."
formatting link
Every plant has
Indeed, that is one of the advantages of an integrated system.
However it is simple statistics that one large centralised plant is more likely to fail than the equivalent number of small decentralised plants are likely to all fail at the same time.
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 18:48:43 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-
I have proposed that a number of Scottish hydro schemes are converted to pumped storage, Sloy being the obviuous starting point. However, that is not to make things easier for more nuclear stations.
Of course there is a lobby against converting a loch or two. One of the late Tom Weir's activities was to "defend" the countryside against such schemes.
At a cost. There are better ways to spend the money.
Then why have you continued the discussion for so long?
You haven't been paying attention then. I reject assertions that such lamps are bound to make houses look like "a corporation toilet" or "a factory". It is possible to employ such lamps in such a fashion, but that is also true of any other sort of lamp. By making sensible use of such lamps one hardly knows they are in use.
I have already demonstrated some of the flaws with such an approach. Below is another of these flaws.
A nuclear programme has been tried before, with government assistance/encouragement. It was privatisation that exposed the finances, which had been hidden for decades, to the cold light of day. "The market" didn't like the figures and all the nuclear plants were withdrawn from the sale, much to the disgust of many party politicians at the time. However, these plants continued to be propped up by electricity customers, via the so-called non fossil fuel obligations and other dodges [1]. Later a few bits of the nuclear portfolio were privatised, only to go belly up. They were then rescued by dodgy government deals that involved yet more responsibility, this time for decommissioning, being loaded on the long suffering taxpayer.
[1] The so-called Nuclear Energy Agreement, which was in force for
15 years until 2005, forced Scottish Power to take 74.9% and Scottish Hydro-Electric to take 25.1% of all the electricity Torness and Hunterston B managed to produce, whether they wanted to or not. So much for the free market.
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 19:45:14 +0100, David Hansen wrote (in article ):
I don't see why not. As you said, a means of storage of energy is a useful partnership with nuclear generation.
It would be far better to have a concerted effort at constructing a comprehensive nuclear generation infrastructure now than to tit around with alternative technology, which is at best a distraction and at worst a waste of money.
I'm simply making a set of points and exposing some of the bullshit surrounding low energy lighting.
Oh I have. That's your problem.
I'm sure you do. It doesn't fit with your agenda.
You may not. To me they are instantly recognisable and the light intolerable.
This is irrelevant.
a) technology continues to advance
b) the economic situation is not the same as it was decades ago and won't be in the future
c) other countries manage to operate nuclear generation schemes perfectly effectively.
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 20:22:08 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-
It is also useful for storing electricity from other forms of generation.
Not cost effective and it also has engineering difficulties, some of which I have outlined.
It is already working very well and has a number of not so well known advantages, such as stabilising the local electrical system. This measured very carefully when the first large (for the time) wind farm at Delabole was connected. Voltage was stabilised and the tap changers operated far less often.
I am not experiencing any problems in this discussion. Quite the reverse in fact.
Incorrect.
So you assert.
Engineering does indeed continue to advance in many fields, though some of the anti-renewables lobby seem unaware of it, or are deliberately ignoring it.
Scottish Hydro Electric has been getting 5-10% more out of refurbished hydro stations.
The cost and output of wind turbines has changed dramatically in the past decade. As a result relatively large wind farms like Black Law are a reality
formatting link
generated electricity has advanced a long way since Salter's Duck, as
formatting link
shows.
Nuclear engineering has still to overcome the inability to turn large reactors up and down frequently. There has been some work in this area, but it has yet to demonstrated in a big power station.
It wasn't decades ago that British Energy was bankrupt.
A few do and a very few are seriously planning to add more stations.
It is time to move forward, not try to resurrect failed old policies of the past. It is a great pity that a tired old man, who once promised a New Britain, has fallen into the arms of the nuclear lobby it seems as part of his desperate efforts to escape his legacy, Iraq.
The Sustainable Development Commission have an excellent report on the subject, only 36 pages long. Those with an open mind might like to read it.
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 21:13:51 +0100, David Hansen wrote (in article ):
One has to look at the present and projected future costs and requirements as well as technology becoming available.
Anything can be done on a small scale. The question is what would be required in terms of land area and deployment of windmills to supply a significant proportion of electrical demand as opposed to a few percent.
That's OK, then.
It's interesting that you have sought to sweep aside anything that doesn't fit......
I have no interest in what lobbies do - I am simply looking at acceptabilities and practicalities.
rose tinted spectacles that you do.
formatting link
Is this a joke? The announcement by this firm that it has secured £13m in new investment takes the total investment to around £20m. This is barely even venture capital. It's all very nice as marginal technology, but the level of investment is nowhere near the kind of levels needed to make this a viable mainstream technology.
I am quite sure that solutions will be found to address this.
So what. Any kind of major power generation technology or facility has a lifecycle of decades. Economics, technology and market conditions can change many times over during that period.
I am sure that there will be more as the realisation dawns that this is the only way to plug the energy generation gap.
That's certainly true. It should be done in a completely new way and with modern nuclear technology, not that of the fifties.
Yes I know. I really don't know what Gordon Brown is thinking about.
I have looked at this organisation in the past and will certainly read their report. I will also look very carefully at the backgrounds of the authors and see whether they can be reasonably said to have an open mind.
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 21:49:13 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-
Already done several times. A search engine will pull it up.
The answer is vastly fewer wind turbines than there are currently large pylons.
Ah, so now you don't have an engineering objection, just a visual one. Good, Black Law demonstrates how to have a large wind farm with few objections of any sort.
Anyway 81% of the public are in favour of wind farms
formatting link
highlighted the positive findings from the first DTI commissioned NOP survey ? published today ? saying that "despite all the hot air and scepticism from certain quarters, 85% of the general public support the use of renewable energy, 81% are in favour of wind power and just over three fifths would be happy to live within
5km of a wind power development."
Not tomorrow. However, over the next decade or two it will go the same way as wind has gone. The progress of onshore wind is shown in
formatting link
and many other reports.
It might be. Of course they have been trying for decades and, rather like practical electricity from fusion, it always seems to be some way off.
"The only way" is an interesting assertion. Rather obviously it is, at best, incorrect. One might prefer some of the other ways to other other ways, but there are other ways, including minimising any such gap.
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 22:24:42 +0100, David Hansen wrote (in article ):
Hardly the same profile.
I didn't say that. Visual and environmental impact are the ones most often raised. Practicality is another matter.
Not if one reads the various articles.
Notice the percentage drop markedly when it is close to home or somewhere they might like to go on holiday.
Not an impartial source.
Hardly in the same league in terms of pushing back the frontiers of science
If one looks at projected requirements, the alternative energy sources with all factors taken into account are not going to represent more than a tiny percentage. In other words they are a distraction.
I was somewhat amused to read that one of the objections to nuclear generation in the SDC paper was the undermining of energy efficiency.
There's nothing wrong with sensibly applied energy efficiency without compulsion, but that is a very weak argument in comparison to some of the others in terms of being a justification for not using nuclear generation.
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 23:02:23 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-
Feel free to detail the various articles about objections to Black Law, which you claim exist.
The DTI, a well known part of the nuclear lobby?
Are you claiming that they have lied about the history of wind generated electricity?
Or perhaps you are claiming that their report on future possibilities is wrong? If so, your cl.aims need to be rather more than just a four word assertion.
Your amusement does not undermine their point, which is well made and accurate.
There are indeed plenty of other arguments to be made and which they make. Attempting to salami slice arguments and so pick them off one by one is a well known tactic, but not one that will succeed here.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.